Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.
However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.
"It has been gutted," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.
Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.
A Watered-Down Law
Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.
This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.
At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."
From Ambition to Compromise
The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.
"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.
Originally, the law required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.
"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."
Mounting Pressure
However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.
Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.
"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.
The Weakened Final Text
In the final legislation includes key dilutions:
- Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
- A new “low risk” category was introduced.
- A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
- Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.
"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."
Business Frustration
The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.
"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."
Official Defense
An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."
"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."
